High CourtsSingle Bench

Ashok Kumar Anchalia vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 8 August 2013 · Citation: (2013) 08 MP CK 0272

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.K. Maheshwari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438, 438(2) · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 120B, 420, 468, 471 · Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(1)(d), 13(2)
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 4488 of 2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 428 words

J.K. Maheshwari, J.—Both the parties are heard. This is first application filed by the applicant u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with crime vide FIR No. RC 0082012A0002 registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station CBI, ACB, Bhopal.

2.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf the applicant contends that looking to the entire charge-sheet, the only allegation levelled against the present applicant is that while forwarding the loan papers of the borrower, receipts of cash credit limit deposit in the warehouse were not recovered. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the collateral security, which is available with the borrower, is more than the value of the cash credit limit. However, the aforesaid fact looses its sanctity. It is also submitted that the investigation is based on documents, which have already been seized and the challan has already been filed. However, there is no necessity to make any seizure of the documents from the present applicant. The applicant is an officer of the bank. In such circumstances, prayer is made by the learned counsel for the applicant to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

3.

On the other hand, Shri Vivek Sharan, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondent/CBI submits that the applicant is the Branch Manager of UCO Bank, Khandwa where from the loan was processed without verification of the papers submitted by the borrower. Therefore, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

4.

After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the observations made in the charge-sheet and the documents produced relating to grant of such loan, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that applicant Ashok Kumar Anchalia s/o Bagmal Anchalia is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

5.

Therefore, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant Ashok Kumar Anchalia s/o Bagmal Anchalia be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the condition that he shall cooperate with the investigation, which is to be made by the Investigating Agency and also subject to abiding the conditions enumerated u/s 438(2) of Cr.P.C. C.C. as per rules.